Jim Benning's mid-season press conference

[CanucksJay]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

I actually did a fairly exhaustive comparison between the different lists and who we would have if we just fired all our scouts and drafted BPA still available from the other lists.

McKenzie was actually not one of the better ones.  Button and Pronman give us a better crop of young talent.  Benning comes out as above average, but if scouting is his forte and the other parts are below average... he isn't "that" far above the general pack of pundits... none of whom even have GM jobs and access to a large scouting staff



 

 

 

I look at these lists and I like our guys more. 

Every single one of our guys has character. 

Even party Jake. If he was any other guy getting crapped on, benched, singled out consistently like he has while being in Vancouver, there would have been character issues and he would have been traded by now. 

What has Sam Bennett accomplished to say he wants out? 

I wish Jake would focus and train harder but that sometimes comes with maturity. The fact that he hasn't rocked the boat throughout gives me hope that he's just a late bloomer. 

Juolevi's career is just beginning after getting derailed by injuries. 

He has looked great this year and I'll be surpised if he isn't a bonafide top 4 soon. 

As for Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes. We're pretty happy am I right? 

[ilduce39]

22 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

I look at these lists and I like our guys more. 

Every single one of our guys has character. 

Even party Jake. If he was any other guy getting crapped on, benched, singled out consistently like he has while being in Vancouver, there would have been character issues and he would have been traded by now. 

What has Sam Bennett accomplished to say he wants out? 

I wish Jake would focus and train harder but that sometimes comes with maturity. The fact that he hasn't rocked the boat throughout gives me hope that he's just a late bloomer. 

Juolevi's career is just beginning after getting derailed by injuries. 

He has looked great this year and I'll be surpised if he isn't a bonafide top 4 soon. 

As for Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes. We're pretty happy am I right? 

I think you also need to weigh the magnitude of the "hits" JB has had. 

 

Pettersson and Hughes aren't just good picks.. even having "off" years they're franchise-level talents and two of the most skilled players we've ever had.

 

Sub them out for Villardi and Dobson and it's not like "oh well those guys are good too" . . . it's a gigantic difference. 

[wiseupsucker]

I genuinely laugh at anybody who thinks it will be easy to get rid of contracts for picks with the wave of a magic wand in a cap era. Even when there was no covid and flat cap teams were using picks to get rid of contacts, now enter a flat cap which makes it harder. EVERYTHING now is going to be cap in cap out. We have entered into a era where cap is more valuable than draft picks. Good luck in people who think at the deadline we can be sellers for the contracts you want to get rid of for a bounty of picks.

[Provost]

7 hours ago, IBatch said:

Yes - he's not signing any LE types - or Sutter types - but the point is both Detroit (who started right when we did!) and OTT also sign placeholders as you've just pointed out.  Both GMs have done similar things that JB has done the last couple of years... signing a bunch of placeholders.   Dorion, Holland and Yzerman.   Why?  Because a team still needs to ice an NHL team. 

Nobody said not to sign NHL “placeholders” to fill slots that kids aren’t ready to.  The issue is that you can do that with decent veteran NHLers at low dollars and with little to no term.

 

The vast difference between us and Ottawa/Detroit is that they have a ton of cap room and no real liability going forward.  They are right near the bottom of the league and we are near the top and millions into LTIR.  It is fine to rebuild and not spend to the cap so you are ready to add players once you are ready.

They are building as fast as their kids are ready... and not losing efficient valuable players because they are capped out.

 

They both have many more millions of cap space to play with this summer and extra picks in the early rounds.

 

 

 

 

[ShawnAntoski]

7 hours ago, wiseupsucker said:

I genuinely laugh at anybody who thinks it will be easy to get rid of contracts for picks with the wave of a magic wand in a cap era. Even when there was no covid and flat cap teams were using picks to get rid of contacts, now enter a flat cap which makes it harder. EVERYTHING now is going to be cap in cap out. We have entered into a era where cap is more valuable than draft picks. Good luck in people who think at the deadline we can be sellers for the contracts you want to get rid of for a bounty of picks.

Yeah, it will be hard (ofcourse), this is probably why, JB will just have to tune out the cognoscenti (got this from another poster) in 650 and ride this out; also, I would hope that he stop signing 30+ vets to term contracts and just stick to drafting & development, which is a far more sustainable way of building a cup contender in a cap world (especially, during a pandemic).  Although, I would argue that perhaps with the ED, there might be some opportunities available (?). 

Edited March 9, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[Josepho]

5 hours ago, IBatch said:

Your still missing the point.   Both teams were tops in the league over the same time period (with SJ), both teams had given away picks to do their best to get the most out of their core, and both teams eventually had to pay the piper.  Detroit for sure is Vans best comp.   We also were 7th in the league when JB first arrived - in case you forgot - in the same time period when both teams were trying to hold on.  You can't call the Horvat pick (Schnieder) as part of the rebuilt because it for sure was not, the team kept trying - just like Detroit under Holland, to maximize what they could get from their "stale cores".   Detroit also barely made the playoffs in 2014 did they not - when they drafted Larkin?   The Macro view of both teams - says they are the closest two comps ... Holland didn't bottom out the same way as fast but he for sure did his best re-tool he could manage with Green and Kronwall....amongst others. 

 

Like i said earlier - of the two teams - put your money where your mouth is - which team would you rather have as of right now?   I'm going with Vancouver.   Detroit will get a few more good draft positions, just like we did.   And catch up.   The two teams look are within maybe at most, two years within each other as far as rebuilds go.   Yzerman for sure is putting his reputation on the line taking over that club too. 

 

4th, 6th,6th and 9th and 19, 20 and 15

 

Hmm.   Where has JB drafted over the same time - and who's got the better team?   Where are their 2nd rounders, 5th or 3rd or whomever in the lineup?  Embarrassing really.  Detroit has potential, like we did three years ago plus Larkin. 

Alright, lot to go through here. Just to make you happy, I'll say that I currently prefer our young core of players to Detroit. 

 

Bo Horvat is a part of the young core player that Benning inherited, when you're arguing about which better young core a GM has, it seems unfair to credit the GM for a player he didn't even draft.

 

Holland and Benning did try to maximize their stale cores, yes. However, Holland sure did a better job maximizing his core, while Benning finished 28th in 2016 and 29th in 2017. However, you're now admitting that Benning was actually trying to compete with signings like Eriksson/Sutter, and this is now contradicting your previous statement that players like these were placeholders. Additionally, if Benning's attempts to compete led to two consecutive bottom 5 finishes, shouldn't that tell you about his ability to improve a roster? Look at how Doug Wilson got his "stale core" to compete in comparison to Benning. 

 

Yes, the draft selections the team currently has looks similar. However, Detroit's highest picks have all come in the past 2 years while our highest picks happened from 2016 to 2018. Our "best" picks have had more time to develop, so of course the core looks better. Moritz Seider is currently looking terrific, and will make this a lot closer once he gets a chance to prove himself in the NHL.

 

I really doubt Yzerman is putting his reputation on the line in Detroit. And, as shown by how well Tampa has done over the past decade, he clearly knows how to run a hockey team and put a foundation in place.

 

Nonetheless, I don't think Detroit is our best comparable from the past 7 years -- it's actually likely Toronto.

 

Both teams had a high pick 2013-2014, both had shallower prospect pools (one really good prospect for each team in Horvat/Reilly), and both were hiring new management teams (Shanahan in Toronto and Linden/Benning here).

 

Vancouver attempted to compete, did well for exactly one season, then completely flatlined in 2016 (after paying big for players like Sutter), finishing 28th. Instead of trying to rebuild the team, Benning thought the team was still capable, traded McCann/2nd for Gudbranson and then signed Eriksson to a 6x6, his team then finished 29th in spite of trying to compete. Benning then "kind of" rebuilt (didn't really accumulate any major assets but sucked and didn't mortgage the future in years prior) in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, and had one good season in 2019-2020, where he mortgaged a 1st round pick, signed Myers to a crippling contract, traded a 2nd and Madden for a rental, and lost two of his more important players (Markstrom/Tanev) due to the cap he horribly mismanaged. Now, the team is projected to finish bottom 10 in 5 of the past 6 seasons and, by Benning's own admission, is "2 years away".

 

Toronto did poorly for two seasons, but executed their rebuild without signing any long-term contracts (bringing in guys like I showed a few pages ago) or trading away picks, then became a winning playoff team from 2017 onwards. Their team is now top 5 in the NHL and has gradually improved through smart trades and signings. Look at how their salary cap is distributed -- look at how players like Thornton/Spezza are providing so much to their team cheaply and compare them to the logjam of expensive garbage that Benning brings in consistently.

 

I want you to tell me two things.

 

1) Do you think Benning was trying to compete until the end of the 2017 season?

2) Do you think the Leafs have done a lot better managing their team than us?

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Josepho

[CanadianRugby]

2 hours ago, Josepho said:

Alright, lot to go through here. Just to make you happy, I'll say that I currently prefer our young core of players to Detroit. 

 

Bo Horvat is a part of the young core player that Benning inherited, when you're arguing about which better young core a GM has, it seems unfair to credit the GM for a player he didn't even draft.

 

Holland and Benning did try to maximize their stale cores, yes. However, Holland sure did a better job maximizing his core, while Benning finished 28th in 2016 and 29th in 2017. However, you're now admitting that Benning was actually trying to compete with signings like Eriksson/Sutter, and this is now contradicting your previous statement that players like these were placeholders. Additionally, if Benning's attempts to compete led to two consecutive bottom 5 finishes, shouldn't that tell you about his ability to improve a roster? Look at how Doug Wilson got his "stale core" to compete in comparison to Benning. 

 

Yes, the draft selections the team currently has looks similar. However, Detroit's highest picks have all come in the past 2 years while our highest picks happened from 2016 to 2018. Our "best" picks have had more time to develop, so of course the core looks better. Moritz Seider is currently looking terrific, and will make this a lot closer once he gets a chance to prove himself in the NHL.

 

I really doubt Yzerman is putting his reputation on the line in Detroit. And, as shown by how well Tampa has done over the past decade, he clearly knows how to run a hockey team and put a foundation in place.

 

Nonetheless, I don't think Detroit is our best comparable from the past 7 years -- it's actually likely Toronto.

 

Both teams had a high pick 2013-2014, both had shallower prospect pools (one really good prospect for each team in Horvat/Reilly), and both were hiring new management teams (Shanahan in Toronto and Linden/Benning here).

 

Vancouver attempted to compete, did well for exactly one season, then completely flatlined in 2016 (after paying big for players like Sutter), finishing 28th. Instead of trying to rebuild the team, Benning thought the team was still capable, traded McCann/2nd for Gudbranson and then signed Eriksson to a 6x6, his team then finished 29th in spite of trying to compete. Benning then "kind of" rebuilt (didn't really accumulate any major assets but sucked and didn't mortgage the future in years prior) in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, and had one good season in 2019-2020, where he mortgaged a 1st round pick, signed Myers to a crippling contract, traded a 2nd and Madden for a rental, and lost two of his more important players (Markstrom/Tanev) due to the cap he horribly mismanaged. Now, the team is projected to finish bottom 10 in 5 of the past 6 seasons and, by Benning's own admission, is "2 years away".

 

Toronto did poorly for two seasons, but executed their rebuild without signing any long-term contracts (bringing in guys like I showed a few pages ago) or trading away picks, then became a winning playoff team from 2017 onwards. Their team is now top 5 in the NHL and has gradually improved through smart trades and signings. Look at how their salary cap is distributed -- look at how players like Thornton/Spezza are providing so much to their team cheaply and compare them to the logjam of expensive garbage that Benning brings in consistently.

 

I want you to tell me two things.

 

1) Do you think Benning was trying to compete until the end of the 2017 season?

2) Do you think the Leafs have done a lot better managing their team than us?

 

 

Wow.  Great breakdown but unfortunately you're wasting your time.  The Benning loyalists on CDC accept facts about as well as Trump supporters. 

[JM_]

14 hours ago, Josepho said:

Alright, lot to go through here. Just to make you happy, I'll say that I currently prefer our young core of players to Detroit. 

 

Bo Horvat is a part of the young core player that Benning inherited, when you're arguing about which better young core a GM has, it seems unfair to credit the GM for a player he didn't even draft.

 

Holland and Benning did try to maximize their stale cores, yes. However, Holland sure did a better job maximizing his core, while Benning finished 28th in 2016 and 29th in 2017. However, you're now admitting that Benning was actually trying to compete with signings like Eriksson/Sutter, and this is now contradicting your previous statement that players like these were placeholders. Additionally, if Benning's attempts to compete led to two consecutive bottom 5 finishes, shouldn't that tell you about his ability to improve a roster? Look at how Doug Wilson got his "stale core" to compete in comparison to Benning. 

 

Yes, the draft selections the team currently has looks similar. However, Detroit's highest picks have all come in the past 2 years while our highest picks happened from 2016 to 2018. Our "best" picks have had more time to develop, so of course the core looks better. Moritz Seider is currently looking terrific, and will make this a lot closer once he gets a chance to prove himself in the NHL.

 

I really doubt Yzerman is putting his reputation on the line in Detroit. And, as shown by how well Tampa has done over the past decade, he clearly knows how to run a hockey team and put a foundation in place.

Benning+Linden | Post-Linden

 

its just not an honest look at Bennings tenure if you don't look at it as two distinct phases. With Linden set on the Sedin re-tool certain decisions were made, like Loui and Sutter, that don't make much sense from the view of an actual rebuild around youth. 

 

14 hours ago, Josepho said:

 

Nonetheless, I don't think Detroit is our best comparable from the past 7 years -- it's actually likely Toronto.

 

Both teams had a high pick 2013-2014, both had shallower prospect pools (one really good prospect for each team in Horvat/Reilly), and both were hiring new management teams (Shanahan in Toronto and Linden/Benning here).

 

correct me if I'm wrong, but Toronto hasn't won a playoff round since 2004..... 

 

14 hours ago, Josepho said:

 

Vancouver attempted to compete, did well for exactly one season, then completely flatlined in 2016 (after paying big for players like Sutter), finishing 28th. Instead of trying to rebuild the team, Benning thought the team was still capable, traded McCann/2nd for Gudbranson and then signed Eriksson to a 6x6, his team then finished 29th in spite of trying to compete. Benning then "kind of" rebuilt (didn't really accumulate any major assets but sucked and didn't mortgage the future in years prior) in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, and had one good season in 2019-2020, where he mortgaged a 1st round pick, signed Myers to a crippling contract, traded a 2nd and Madden for a rental, and lost two of his more important players (Markstrom/Tanev) due to the cap he horribly mismanaged. Now, the team is projected to finish bottom 10 in 5 of the past 6 seasons and, by Benning's own admission, is "2 years away".

again, you are making the error of not looking at the two distinct phases here. Myers is not a "crippling contract" thats just a silly statement. 

 

14 hours ago, Josepho said:

Toronto did poorly for two seasons, but executed their rebuild without signing any long-term contracts (bringing in guys like I showed a few pages ago) or trading away picks, then became a winning playoff team from 2017 onwards. Their team is now top 5 in the NHL and has gradually improved through smart trades and signings. Look at how their salary cap is distributed -- look at how players like Thornton/Spezza are providing so much to their team cheaply and compare them to the logjam of expensive garbage that Benning brings in consistently.

 

I want you to tell me two things.

 

1) Do you think Benning was trying to compete until the end of the 2017 season?

2) Do you think the Leafs have done a lot better managing their team than us?

 

 

So far TO hasn't done squat when it mattered. Not sure why you're giving them so much credit when they have been so bad in the post season. 

[180sret]

16 hours ago, Provost said:

Nobody said not to sign NHL “placeholders” to fill slots that kids aren’t ready to.  The issue is that you can do that with decent veteran NHLers at low dollars and with little to no term.

 

The vast difference between us and Ottawa/Detroit is that they have a ton of cap room and no real liability going forward.  They are right near the bottom of the league and we are near the top and millions into LTIR.  It is fine to rebuild and not spend to the cap so you are ready to add players once you are ready.

They are building as fast as their kids are ready... and not losing efficient valuable players because they are capped out.

 

They both have many more millions of cap space to play with this summer and extra picks in the early rounds.

 

 

 

 

Some placeholders are better and maybe give you a better chance of being competitive, but cost a little more. You seem to forget that the team is trying to battle for wins while the young guys learn what works and doesn't at this level. Sure there are players that can fill the bottom 6 for cheaper but then you would be complaining about Banning icing an AHL team. Me thinks you just like to complain. Are you not being entertained or are the losses to crushing for your ego?

Personally I'm enjoying this rebuild, I'm happy with Green and Benning, and watching the team get better. Anyone paid an NHL salary to coach is an NHL caliber coach. Christ there are only 32 jobs available, and every coach has warts!

[Josepho]

52 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Benning+Linden | Post-Linden

 

its just not an honest look at Bennings tenure if you don't look at it as two distinct phases. With Linden set on the Sedin re-tool certain decisions were made, like Loui and Sutter, that don't make much sense from the view of an actual rebuild around youth. 

 

 

correct me if I'm wrong, but Toronto hasn't won a playoff round since 2004..... 

 

again, you are making the error of not looking at the two distinct phases here. Myers is not a "crippling contract" thats just a silly statement. 

 

So far TO hasn't done squat when it mattered. Not sure why you're giving them so much credit when they have been so bad in the post season. 

I agree that Loui/Sutter don't make much sense around the team's youth, but do you not agree that it's at least slightly concerning that Benning's attempt to compete by signing those players was very poor? Tell me why you think his "rebuild around youth" was actually a rebuild, and not just his team sucking.

 

I think I pretty clearly analyzed the differences pre-Linden and post Linden. Linden left following the signing of Beagle/Roussel, and likely (rightfully) disagreed with those decisions. How much better would you like me to distinguish between the two "phases"?

 

Toronto has not won a playoff round yet, but they were also stuck in a division with an extremely good Boston team that they often took to 7 games -- they haven't been "very bad". You MIGHT have an argument if they were getting swept by wildcard teams every year, but that's not the case. That's more of a product of being in a tough division than anything else -- I'd be very surprised if they didn't win multiple playoff rounds this season. Playoff success is often based on very small sample sizes, and it can be a poor measure of future success (2020 Canucks, 2017 Oilers, 2017 Senators). 

 

Why isn't Myers a crippling contract? At BEST he's a 4D (gives up a ton of chances and goals), who's being paid for 3 more seasons after this, and is on the wrong side of 30. It might not be a nightmare right now, but it's going to severely block us from adding high quality assets to the team, and in fact it already has.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Josepho

[Provost]

29 minutes ago, 180sret said:

Some placeholders are better and maybe give you a better chance of being competitive, but cost a little more. You seem to forget that the team is trying to battle for wins while the young guys learn what works and doesn't at this level. Sure there are players that can fill the bottom 6 for cheaper but then you would be complaining about Banning icing an AHL team. Me thinks you just like to complain. Are you not being entertained or are the losses to crushing for your ego?

Personally I'm enjoying this rebuild, I'm happy with Green and Benning, and watching the team get better. Anyone paid an NHL salary to coach is an NHL caliber coach. Christ there are only 32 jobs available, and every coach has warts!

So when you are talking about some placeholders giving you a better chance of being competitive... you weren't talking about our lot I assume?

They sure have done a great job of keeping us near the bottom of the standings!  We are paying premium dollars for worse players.  Are Roussel and Ferland providing more competitive value than Vanek and Vrbata did?  That would be news to pretty much everyone.

You are making false strawman arguments.  No one said to ice an AHL team.  Go to each UFA offseason and look at the players signed after July 1st.  Plenty of good solid veterans for low dollars and term.

Your coaching rant literally had nothing to do with my post as I never mentioned coaching in it.

[JM_]

25 minutes ago, Josepho said:

I agree that Loui/Sutter don't make much sense around the team's youth, but do you not agree that it's at least slightly concerning that Benning's attempt to compete by signing those players was very poor? Tell me why you think his "rebuild around youth" was actually a rebuild, and not just his team sucking.

Loui was coming off a 30+ goal season and had great chemistry with the Sedins in international play. It wasn't a decision coming out of his arse, there was a logic to it.

 

Sutter's deal was a bit surprising. But again, that wasn't part of the youth movement, that was the Sedin re-jig.  

 

Quote

I think I pretty clearly analyzed the differences pre-Linden and post Linden. Linden left following the signing of Beagle/Roussel, and likely (rightfully) disagreed with those decisions. How much better would you like me to distinguish between the two "phases"?

tbh I think you and many others do confuse the two phases when it suits the argument. As above, e.g., Sutter had nothing to do with a youth rebuild. It was to try to put in a 2C behind Henrik with Bo looking like he had 3C potential at the time. 

 

Beagle has absolutely helped in making a more competitive team for Petey et al to learn the game in. Rous too at certain times like the bubble playoffs. He stinks this year tho.

 

Quote

Toronto has not won a playoff round yet, but they were also stuck in a division with an extremely good Boston team that they often took to 7 games -- they haven't been "very bad". You MIGHT have an argument if they were getting swept by wildcard teams every year, but that's not the case. That's more of a product of being in a tough division than anything else -- I'd be very surprised if they didn't win multiple playoff rounds this season. Playoff success is often based on very small sample sizes, and it can be a poor measure of future success (2020 Canucks, 2017 Oilers, 2017 Senators). 

respectfully, that's all excuses. So far all Dubas has created is 1st round exits. Jake said something to the effect of the way you beat TO is to make them play defence, and he's not wrong. They are still vulnerable to a crappy team defence. 

 

Quote

Why isn't Myers a crippling contract? At BEST he's a 4D (gives up a ton of chances and goals), who's being paid for 3 more seasons after this, and is on the wrong side of 30. It might not be a nightmare right now, but it's going to severely block us from adding high quality assets to the team, and in fact it already has.

because he's a good player. Lets circle back to this when he actually doesn't play well, if that ever happens. He's also not required to be protected for expansion. Lots of things in play here before we can call this a crippling deal. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[kanucks25]

Wonder what the org. would look like right now if this went down as the Canucks had hoped:

 

“Vancouver has confirmed this to me. There was a chance the Canucks were going to get PK Subban that night. The problem was that Pierre-Luc Dubois was not going to fall to Vancouver’s pick, because Montreal knew Columbus was taking him. If Montreal believed that Dubois was going to be available at five, PK Subban could have been a Vancouver Canuck.

[ruilin96]

21 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Wonder what the org. would look like right now if this went down as the Canucks had hoped:

 

“Vancouver has confirmed this to me. There was a chance the Canucks were going to get PK Subban that night. The problem was that Pierre-Luc Dubois was not going to fall to Vancouver’s pick, because Montreal knew Columbus was taking him. If Montreal believed that Dubois was going to be available at five, PK Subban could have been a Vancouver Canuck.

A nightmare I wish to never revisit. Because the rumour was not 5th OA for Subban, it was 5th OA + Horvat for Subban.

Edited March 9, 2021 by ruilin96

[Josepho]

56 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Loui was coming off a 30+ goal season and had great chemistry with the Sedins in international play. It wasn't a decision coming out of his arse, there was a logic to it.

 

Sutter's deal was a bit surprising. But again, that wasn't part of the youth movement, that was the Sedin re-jig.  

 

tbh I think you and many others do confuse the two phases when it suits the argument. As above, e.g., Sutter had nothing to do with a youth rebuild. It was to try to put in a 2C behind Henrik with Bo looking like he had 3C potential at the time. 

 

Beagle has absolutely helped in making a more competitive team for Petey et al to learn the game in. Rous too at certain times like the bubble playoffs. He stinks this year tho.

 

respectfully, that's all excuses. So far all Dubas has created is 1st round exits. Jake said something to the effect of the way you beat TO is to make them play defence, and he's not wrong. They are still vulnerable to a crappy team defence. 

 

because he's a good player. Lets circle back to this when he actually doesn't play well, if that ever happens. He's also not required to be protected for expansion. Lots of things in play here before we can call this a crippling deal. 

There was logic to it, but keep in mind that Loui was a clearly declining asset until he had one season propped up by elite linemates. Benning completely fell for it. 

 

Yes, it was part of the Sedin re-jig. However, it was a bad transaction -- showing horrendous pro-scouting where we gave up a cheaper and better player while also downgrading our draft pick. Doesn't that make Benning's talent evaluation look quite poor? We would've been better off keeping Bonino as the 2C in front of Bo, which we literally did the previous season.

 

Beagle and Roussel may have had some form of mentoring (even though there's no actual evidence of this), but look at opportunity cost, and look at similar deals handed out to other placeholders. Valterri Filpulla was available in the same offseason, and signed a 1 year contract worth 2.75 -- he also has a cup ring like Beagle if you're into that. Same thing with Chris Kunitz and Eric Fehr, who both signed for 1x1 contracts.

 

He stinks this year, but that's because the vast majority of hockey players do decline significantly once they hit their 30s -- Benning even experienced this himself after signing Eriksson.

 

If what I'm saying are excuses, then what are your defences of Benning? Additionally, if Toronto wins a playoff round (or multiple) this season, will you suddenly admit that Toronto might know what they're doing? If beating Toronto was that easy, maybe we (and the other 5 teams in our division) should do that make them play team defence.

 

I think Myers is a decent player, but again, cost opportunity, and the fact that these bad contracts all stack up. Without contracts like Myers' (and others), this team actually probably could've made a serious bid for an actual star player like Hall or Pietrangelo, and they could've kept Toffoli. He already has declined so far -- he has the worst 5v5xGA/60 among team regulars. Pretty much every non-elite player gets significantly worse in their 30s, and it's foolish to suggest that Myers will buck the trend. This "wait and see" mentality shows a lack of proactivity, which you absolutely can't have from your GM.

 

Here's my question: what IF Myers declines significantly before his contract ends (which is likely)?

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Josepho

[DSVII]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

tbh I think you and many others do confuse the two phases when it suits the argument. As above, e.g., Sutter had nothing to do with a youth rebuild. It was to try to put in a 2C behind Henrik with Bo looking like he had 3C potential at the time. 

 

I just want to add here, that Linden-Benning/ Benning post linden is considered different phases and must be judged according to the moves within their phases. 

 

But when a comparison is made with this team and the Leafs (who i agree with Josepho on are a good comparable). They are a monolithic front office that has been rebuilding since 2007 despite going through their own shifting in front offices from despite having a President of hockey ops change and two gms since 2014. 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by DSVII

[oldnews]

14 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Wow.  Great breakdown but unfortunately you're wasting your time.  The Benning loyalists on CDC accept facts about as well as Trump supporters. 

Leave your political spew / Trump references out of it - it's nothing but an ironic waste of time/words (and highly unoriginal/beaten to death (and ought to be buried by now) - as well as the binary nominalism you always reduce to.

 

You lamenting about the inability to have a reasoned conversation is ironic.

You're the guy posting the flake/fake quotes in this thread. 

 

If you want to have an honest discussion, try engaging in one.

[kanucks25]

23 minutes ago, ruilin96 said:

A nightmare I wish to never revisit. Because the rumour was not 5th OA for Subban, it was 5th OA + Horvat for Subban.

Wow, I never heard that. I thought it was just the 5OA straight up.

 

Do you have a source?

[ruilin96]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

Wow, I never heard that. I thought it was just the 5OA straight up.

 

Do you have a source?

I don't remember exactly where, but I read it a couple years ago that the deal was 5th OA + Horvat for PK Subban. At the time, Bergevin also wanted a NHLer in retruen because Subban was at his prime and one of the best offensive defenseman in the league and Bergevin did not just want to part him with just a pick. So the rumour was Horvat + 5th OA. Now there is also a possibility that Horvat + 5th OA for Subban + 9th OA (pick was later used to select Sergachev). I am not sure which one is the truth, but Horvat's name was in the mix. My theory at the time was ownership wanted one last kick at the can with the Sedins as they were trying to trade for Subban and try to sign Stamkos in the UFA market (if he gets there which he didn't). 

 

I found out about this after the draft as I remember I was super upset at the draft when Dubois was gone at 3 as he was the guy I wanted the most. Little did I know that we dodged a huge bullet.

[oldnews]

The thing about all the panic / must sell now mentality....

 

Is that it's oblivious to reality.  It creates an imperative in a vacuum.

 

If you want to suggest that the team must sell Pearson or Sutter or Benn - then look realistically at the potential buyers / actual teams - and assess some of the most obvious variables.

 

1)  to what teams do those players represent principal needs?

2) are those teams in a position to make a deal at this time? ie are their own playoff chances secure enough to buy early?  do they have the cap space - as well as the will and need to add? 

3) what are they willing to part with?  would a proposed deal make sense both ways?  to what extent do they value those players?

 

 

I have reviewed the lineups/rosters of the North teams - and can think of a few possible fits....however, in half those cases it will probabl depend/be contingent on their performance heading toward the deadline (and how they see their playoff chances). 

The reality is that deadline deals typically happen closer to the deadline for a number of reasons - which include team sustaining injuries (which has not necessarily generated any particular market to this point).

The idea that "if I were GM I'd sell them/have already sold them" - is video game material.

And given how complicated the above factors can become - in addition to the covid complications - it's not clear whether there will be much market - or when teams might start to act/if they eventually do.   If teams do run into injuries - that could only enhance this team's leverage as a seller - so there's nothing obvious or evident in the imperative to have sold already.  For me - it's just more drama - that this market loves to dwell upon.